92

that the light that appeared on Tabor to the chosen disciples of the Lord is properly not even intelligible, has been sufficiently demonstrated beforehand according to my ability in the discourse *On divine illumination and sacred blessedness*.

Those who have contended against such an illumination and light say that all the lights shown by God to the saints are symbolic phantoms, and riddles of certain immaterial and intelligible realities, shown economically and as apparitions according to the circumstances that arise, and they speak falsely against the holy Dionysius the Areopagite as if he agreed with them, although he clearly says that the light that shone around the disciples in the most divine Transfiguration will illuminate us with the most brilliant splendors in the age to come, unceasingly and without end, as we are always with the Lord according to the promise. How then will this most brilliant and divine light—which is ever-existent and properly existent and unchangeably existent—not be distinct from all symbols and riddles, which are fashioned according to the circumstances that arise, which come into being and pass away, and which now exist, or rather sometimes appear, but are almost never properly existent? Or shall we say that the sun, the most brilliant of all sensible things, which begins from a turning and is subject to many annual turnings and is obstructed by many (p. 452) bodies, and is now eclipsed and now hidden, and at times is even subject to the commands of saints, and is thereby even stopped in its motion, turning back and standing still—shall we say that this and the light from it are in hypostasis, but that light, "with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning," the radiance of the consubstantial flesh which possesses and gives the glory of the divinity—this very light, the beauty of the future and abiding age—shall we call it a symbol and a phantom and unsubstantial? No, as long as we are lovers of that light.

For Gregory the Theologian and John of the golden tongue and Basil the Great clearly call this light divinity. "The divinity shown on the mountain to the disciples," he says, "is light"; and again, "the Lord appeared more brilliant than himself, the divinity having shown its rays"; and again, "such a translucent power appeared to the pure in heart, as through glass lamps, through the adorable body." So this glory was not simply of the body, but of the divine nature, which, in one of its holy hypostases united to that adorable body, placed in it all its own glory and divine splendor. Therefore, Macarius the Great also called this the glory of the Spirit. How then will the divinity, the splendor and glory of that superessentiality, now exist and now not exist, coming into being and passing away, appearing and disappearing, not hidden from the unworthy, but passing into non-being, like phantoms and such symbols and riddles and whatever is named by these all-daring ones, who even brought forth their own refutations as if they testified for them, both the divine Dionysius and Maximus, not understanding how the wise in divine things, Maximus, called the light in the Transfiguration of the Lord a symbol of theology analogically and anagogically (p. 454)?

For since symbols, homonymously with all existing things, are both made and spoken of in theologies according to analogy and anagogy, he himself there called this a symbol of this kind, for which reason he also clearly entitled the discourses there a *theoria*, just as Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, called the well-known tree of good and evil a *theoria*, making it a symbol of it anagogically according to his own contemplation, but it was not for this reason a phantom and an unsubstantial symbol. But also Moses and Elijah, the one a symbol of judgment, the other of providence, the divine Maximus makes. Were they not therefore truly present, but were they too symbolic

92

κυρίως οὐδέ νοητόν τό φανέν φῶς ἐν Θαβωρίῳ τοῖς τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ Κυρίου ἀπολέκτοις, ἐν τῷ Περί φωτισμοῦ θείου καί ἱερᾶς εὐδαιμονίας λόγῳ κατ᾿ ἐμήν δύναμιν ἱκανῶς προαποδέδεικται.

Φασί δ᾿ οἱ κατά τοῦ τοιούτου φωτισμοῦ καί φωτός ἀγωνισάμενοι καί συμβολικά εἶναι φάσματα πάντα τά παρά Θεοῦ δειχθέντα τοῖς ἁγίοις φῶτα, καί ἀΰλων δή τινων καί νοητῶν αἰνίγματα πραγμάτων, καί οἰκιονομικῶς καί φανταστικῶς, δεικνύμενα πρός τάς συμβαινούσας περιστάσεις, καί τοῦ Ἀρεοπαγίτου ἁγίου καταψεύδονται ∆ιονυσίου ὡς συμφθεγγομένου τούτοις, καίτοι σαφῶς οὗτος τό ἐν τῇ θειοτάτῃ μεταμορφώσει τούς μαθητάς περιαστράψαν φῶς φανοτάταις μαρμαρυγαῖς ἐπί τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος περιαυγάζειν φησίν ἡμᾶς ἀδιαλείπτως καί ἀτελευτήτως, πάντοτε σύν Κυρίῳ κατά τήν ἐπαγγελίαν ὄντας. Τῶν οὖν συμβόλων τε καί αἰνιγμάτων πάντων, τῶν πρός τά συμβαινούσας περιστάσεις διαπλαττομένων, γινομένων τε καί ἀπογινομένων, καί νῦν μέν ὄντων, μᾶλλον δέ φαιομένων μέν ποτε, κυρίως δέ ὄντων σχεδόν οὐδέποτε, τό ἀεί ὄν καί κυρίως ὄν καί ἀναλλοιώτως ὄν φανότατον τοῦτο καί θειότατον φῶς πῶς οὐκ ἀφειμένον ἔσται; Ἤ τόν μέν ἐν αἰσθητοῖς φανότατον ἁπάντων ἥλιον ἐκ τροπῆς ἠργμένον καί πολλαῖς ἐτησίοις ὑποκείμενον τροπαῖς καί πολλοῖς (σελ. 452) σώμασιν ἀντιφραττόμενον, καί νῦν μέν ἐκλείποτα νῦν δέ κρυπτόμενον, ἔστι δ᾿ ὅτε καί ἁγίων ἐπιτάγμασιν ὑποταττόμενον, κἀντεῦθεν καί κινήσεως ἀνακοπτόμενον, ἀναποδίζοντά τε καί ἱστάμενον, τοῦτον μέν καί τό ἀπό τούτου φῶς ὅ ἐροῦμεν ἐν ὑποστάσει, τό δέ φῶς ἐκεῖνο, «παρ᾿ ᾧ οὐκ ἔστι παραλλαγή ἤ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα», τό ἀπαύγασμα τῆς ὁμοθέου σαρκός τῆς πλουτούσης καί διδούσης τήν δόξαν τῆς θεότητος τοῦτο τοίνυν τό φῶς, τήν καλλονήν τοῦ μέλλοντος καί μένοντος αἰῶνος, σύμβολον καί φάσμα καί ἀνυπόστατον ἐροῦμεν; Οὐχ, ἕως ῶμεντοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου ἀρασταί.

Τοῦτο γάρ τό φῶς καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος καί Ἰωάννης ὁ τήν γλῶτταν χρυσοῦς καί Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας θεότητα σαφῶς καλοῦσι. «Φῶς», φησίν, «ἡ παραδειχθεῖσα θεότης ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους τοῖς μαθηταῖς»˙ καί αὖθις, «λαμπρότερος ἑαυτοῦ ἐφαίνετο ὁ Κύριος, τῆς θεότητος παραδειξάσης τάς ἀκτῖνας αὐτῆς»˙ καί πάλιν, «ἐφαίνετο τοῖς καθαροῖς τήν καρδίαν, ὡς δι᾿ ὑελίνων λαμπτήρων, διά τοῦ προσκυνητοῦ σώματος ἡ τοιαύτη διαυγάζουσα δύναμις». Ὥστε οὐ τοῦ σώματος ἦν ἁπλῶς ἡ δόξα αὕτη, ἀλλά τῆς θείας φύσεως, ἥτις ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ἁγίων ὑποστάσεων τῷ προσκυνητῷ ἐκείνῳ συνημμένη σώματι, πᾶσαν τήν ἰδίαν ταύτην δόξαν καί θεοπρεπῆ λαμπρότητα ἐνέθηκεν αὐτῷ. ∆ιό καί ὁ μέγας Μακάριος δόξαν τοῦτο προσηγόρευσε τοῦ Πνεύματος. Πῶς οὖν ἡ θεότης, ἡ λαμπρότης καί δόξα τῆς ὑπερουσιότητος ἐκείνης, νῦν μέν ἔσται νῦν δ᾿ οὐκ ἔσται, γινομένη τε καί ἀπογινομένη, φαινομένη τε καί ἀφανιζομένη, οὐκ ἀπό τῶν ἀναξίων κρυπτομέη, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τό μή ὄν χωροῦσα, οἶα τά φάσματα καί τά τοιαῦτα σύμβολα καί αἰνίγματα καί ὅσα παρά τῶν παντόλμων ὀνομάζεται τούτων, οἵ καί τούς σφῶν ἐλέγχους ὡς αὐτοῖς συμμαρτυροῦντας παρήγαγον, ∆ιονύσιόν τε τόν θεῖον καί Μάξιμον, οὐ συνορῶντες ὡς ἀναλογικῶς τε καί ἀναγωγικῶς (σελ. 454) θεολογίας σύμβολον τό ἐν τῇ μεταμορφώσει τοῦ Κυρίου φῶς ὁ σοφός τά θεῖα προσηγόρευσε Μάξιομος;

Συμβόλων γάρ ὁμωνύμως καί τῶν ὑφεστώτων πάντων γινομένων τε καί λεγομένων ἐν ταῖς κατ᾿ ἀναλογίαν καί ἀναγωγήν θεολογίαις, τοιοῦτο σύμβολον καί αὐτός ἐκεῖ τουτί προσεῖπε, διό καί θεωρίαν σαφῶς ἐπέγραψε τούς ἐκεῖ λόγους, ὡς καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος θεωρίαν ὠνόμασε τό γνωστόν καλοῦ καί πονηροῦ ξύλον, σύμβολον αὐτῆς κατά τήν ἑαυτοῦ θεωρίαν ἀναγωγικῶς ποιησάμενος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διά τοῦτο φάσμα καί ἀνυπόστατον σύμβολον ἐκεῖνο ἦν. Ἀλλά καί τόν Μωϋσῆν καί τόν Ἠλίαν, τόν μέν κρίσεως, τόν δέ προνοίας σύμβολον, ὁ θεῖος ποιεῖται Μάξιμος. Ἆρ᾿ οὖν οὐ παρῆσαν ἀληθῶς, ἀλλά συμβολικῶς κἀκεῖνοι